|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 25, 2024 8:02:47 GMT
It issue really doesn't rest on 'the evidence'. The theory doesn't work very well and this isn't a matter of opinion or evidence . The lack of viable other explanations add to the evidence. The deniers dishonest. For instance the period from 1998 to 2012 when warming appeared to stop was ceased upon as evidence that the hypothesis was wrong. When it was explained that the growth figures were subdued by the fact we were coming out of a warm El Nino. It was never acknowledged. Nor was the fact that we discovered that the Atlantic elevator carried warmer water deep into the oceans and hid it for a bit while distributing it around the planet. The deniers see everything as fair game. It's actually a model rather than a theory. The model consists of hundreds of theories about the climate made by scientists who specialise in hundreds of areas - and anything they can't model they'll make assumptions about. Whether the theory is accurate enough is the question. No one expects it to be dead accurate because the Earth is a stochastic system - the best that can be done is to give a probability of what might happen. It's never going to be like Relativity which can calculate a solar eclipse to less than a second in 100 years, but that's deterministic. But the model is based on the weather models (obviously) which can't even tell us what's going to happen in a few days. In fact these models are being permanently updated with the current weather position because - even after a few seconds - the projections it has calculated are wrong. But this is the best we can do and it's still better than nothing. In fact in some stable weather patterns it can make reasonable predictions for a week. But the problem is that it's not accurate enough to make long term climate predictions. The predictions made by this model for even next year are wrong - if you run it to find the conditions in 10 years the results will be a total lottery. This is not what most people would call "working fine". We see the inaccuracies every year when the predictions it's made are almost always exaggerated. It didn't predict the "pause", which the IPCC acknowledged initially - until they decided that the data was wrong.  Normally scientists amend their models to fit the data - but these climate change bodies also change the data. The statement about "the lack of other viable explanations" is just nonsense. There are so many other possibilities that are simply left out of the models because they aren't understood. For example where's the modelling for CO2 cooling? It's never been calculated and it's not in the models. What about the 8-fold increase in human population since 1850 (from which the warming is being calculated). It's not considered. Same goes for the 70% repurposing of the land area which has left most of our weather stations in urban areas. All of these factors are not considered. As I said, if you want to work out the attribution of the "warming" you need to include every factor. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 25, 2024 17:35:37 GMT
Time to move on.
Setting aside the effects on wildlife and humans. Would a 2 degree increase in world temperature actually lead to more arable land rather than less?
Logic would say yes as the Northern hemisphere contains a great deal of land mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 25, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
But you are demanding through your representatives that we should follow the lead they are giving yet they all seem to ignore the evidence to the contrary and dismiss it as pseudo-science, flat earth science, denial science, grandchildren killer science. Hardly the stuff of informed debate and rigorous scepticism. Dismissing scepticism with reasoned debate and counter arguments that reinforce the hypothesis is what should happen, what does happen is cries of foul when 'the science' is queried. That makes the whole issue political. Its distraction science. Could it be urban heat, tarmac, volcanoes, the sun, I've heard every one there is. I've heard its not getting warmer, it is but its natural, it is and its us but the Gaia will correct it. Tell me how do you reason with such rubbish? Here's a link saying some readings were wrong with a picture of a weather station in a built up area. Me: do please tell me how many are in the wrong place? How do they compare to the modern satellite readings? No answer. Just: Here's a different reason And another one and another one, its like arguing with quick silver. Add to this the idea that so many scientists could be dishonest for personal gain which I personally find insulting as two of my friends are scientists. In actual fact there were a multitude of answers to the examples you gave.. Here is a station in a built up area, oh look here are another 200 in built up areas. OK we will set up pristine stations, oh look no warming in the pristine stations I know we will do some research apply some factors of statistical variance and opinionated gobbledy gook and look there is a warming trend and it ties in with the models How do stations compare to satellite readings which are surface readings whilst historic readings are 4ft above the surface with all the variables that that entails. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 26, 2024 7:22:48 GMT
You've been given plenty of reasons why the CO2 theory is dubious, zany. You just never read them. The fact is that all the changes that have been made to how we take temperature readings have tended to make the readings higher. Satellite readings of ocean temperature are known to be higher than those taken by buoys and land based weather stations are obviously now in more urban areas for the obvious reason that the Earth is now more urbanised.
The person not giving any answers is you. You just keep making claims that are unsubstantiated - like 95% of scientists believe this, that or other or that the climate change bodies say the predominant reason for warming is CO2, when they say no such thing.
|
|
Normally scientists amend their models to fit the data - but these climate change bodies also change the data.